Discussion Utilisateur:Brya

Un article de Wikipédia, l'encyclopédie libre.

Si tu as d'autres questions, tu peux voir cette page ou me contacter :  Leag ⠇⠑⠁⠛ 8 mai 2006 à 22:06 (CEST)

Discussion Utilisateur:Brya/Archives01

Sommaire 1 Analyse automatique de vos créations (V1) 1.1 Analyse du 2 octobre 2006 1.2 Analyse du 16 octobre 2006 1.3 Analyse du 19 octobre 2006 2 Florabase 3 {{Mobot}} 4 Different things 5 Hyacinthaceae 6 Taxobox 7 Classification classique 8 Mobot photo famille 9 crossosomatales 10 subsp. 11 Bonne année ! 12 Classification de Candolle

[modifier] Analyse automatique de vos créations (V1)

Bonjour.

Je suis Escalabot, un robot dressé par Escaladix. Je fais l'analyse quotidienne de tous les articles créés deux jours plus tôt afin de détecter les articles sans catégories, en impasse et/ou orphelins.

Les liens internes permettent de passer d'un article à l'autre. Un article en impasse est un article qui ne contient aucun lien interne et un article orphelin est un article vers lequel aucun article encyclopédique, donc hors portail, catégorie, etc., ne pointe. Pour plus de détails sur les liens internes, vous pouvez consulter cette page.

Les catégories permettent une classification cohérente des articles et sont un des points forts de Wikipédia. Pour plus de détails sur les catégories, vous pouvez consulter cette page.

Ajouter des liens ou des catégories n'est pas obligatoire, bien sûr, mais cela augmente fortement l'accessibilité à votre article et donc ses chances d'être lu par d'autres internautes d'une part et d'être amélioré par d'autres contributeurs d'autre part.

Pour tout renseignement, n'hésitez pas à passer voir mon dresseur. De même, si vous constatez que mon analyse est erronée, merci de le lui indiquer.

Si vous ne souhaitez plus recevoir mes messages, vous pouvez en faire la demande ici, néanmoins, je vous conseille de laisser ce message tel quel et, dans ce cas, j'ajouterai simplement mes prochaines analyses, à la suite les unes des autres. Escalabot 4 octobre 2006 à 04:31 (CEST)

[modifier] Analyse du 2 octobre 2006

• Conservation (botanique) était
  • un article orphelin (Pages liées)

[modifier] Analyse du 16 octobre 2006

• Type nomenclatural (botanique) était
  • un article orphelin (Pages liées)

[modifier] Analyse du 19 octobre 2006

• Nom botanique était
  • un article orphelin (Pages liées)

[modifier] Florabase

Hello Brya,
For your template, we have first to decide what we want to put in it.
For the genus Aphelia do you want to see the description of the genus or the taxonomic tree of the genus allowing you to access via you click to the previous description of the genus?

• If you want only the tree: easy the only parameter will be the taxon,
• If you want both, we will have to ask for taxon (for the display) + country (040 for "f=040" in the url) + taxonlevel (g for "level=g" in the url) + taxonid (331 for "id=331" in the url).
• Worth, the template could ask for 4 parameters and behave differently if you provide only the taxon or all the 4 informations.

Then we have to decide the output of the template (look like {{ITIS}} with a "Reference florabase: <url>" or look like {{Delta-angio}} with "<url> dans florabase")
Cheers, Liné1 5 octobre 2006 à 09:52 (CEST)

• By the way, for GRIN, there is already {{GRIN espèce}}, {{GRIN genre}} and {{GRIN famille}}
• "f=040" looks very important: if you change it for "f=041" it breaks the result + I found some taxons with "f=039" that you cannot change without breaking the url.
• The problem with Florabase if that the taxon description is not always provided (see Ecdeiocoleaceae that has none) + the parameters for the description page are quite difficult to find + giving access to many links would make a multi-line reference that begins to be problematic when I put too many of them.

=> I would prefer to only give access to the tree page. From there the user can access to the description/pictures/subtaxons by clicking on the small icons.

You will loose quality compared to the links you added in Restionaceae, Xyridaceae and Ecdeiocoleaceae, but in exchange it will be easier to add to articles, more symetrical to other links, shorter...

What would you think of

{{florabase |Ecdeiocoleaceae}} returning:

Référence Florabase (Australie Ouest): Ecdeiocoleaceae (en)

Cheers Liné1 5 octobre 2006 à 13:58 (CEST)

Solution 1: Florabase (Australie Ouest) Senna glutinosa: (en)

Solution 1 is problematic for taxons that have no description like Ecdeiocoleaceae

Solution 2: Référence Florabase (Australie Ouest): (en)

• Ecdeiocolea monostachya
• Georgeantha hexandra

Solution 2 is problematic for taxons with too many subtaxa. Plus it is almost unmanageable with only one template. That would need multiple template. Plus referencing the subtaxa is not the work of the taxa article, but the work of the subtaxa articles.

Another solution would be (forget the small display details, only look at the links and orders):

{{florabase |Restionaceae}} returning:

Référence Florabase (Australie Ouest): Restionaceae (en)

{{florabase |Restionaceae|039|f|039}} returning:

Référence Florabase (Australie Ouest): Restionaceae (en)
        (See Restionaceae description)

Once we agree on the parameters and the general display, the details can be changed later.

For example:

Restionaceae dans Florabase (Australie Ouest) (en)

and:

Restionaceae dans Florabase (Australie Ouest) (en)
        (See Restionaceae description)

Liné1 5 octobre 2006 à 18:22 (CEST)

Brya,

1. multi template (one for each line) references are not a good idea
2. adding species references in a family article is not a good idea
3. you have to believe me, we need 3 parameters for generating the link http://florabase.calm.wa.gov.au/browse/flora?f=039&level=f&id=039

This thread is beginning to be a little long for me. So here are my proposals:

• Proposal a:

{{florabase |Restionaceae}} returning:
Référence Florabase (Australie Ouest): arbre Restionaceae (en)

{{florabase |Restionaceae|039|f|039}} returning:
Référence Florabase (Australie Ouest): arbre Restionaceae (en)
        (Voir description Restionaceae)

• Proposal b: {{florabase |Restionaceae|039|f|039}} returning:

Référence Florabase (Australie Ouest): Restionaceae (en)

• Proposal A:

{{florabase |Restionaceae}} returning:
Arbre Restionaceae dans Florabase (Australie Ouest) (en)

{{florabase |Restionaceae|039|f|039}} returning:
Arbre Restionaceae dans Florabase (Australie Ouest) (en)
        (Voir description Restionaceae)

• Proposal B: {{florabase |Restionaceae|039|f|039}} returning:

Restionaceae dans Florabase (Australie Ouest) (en)

Where a and A are a single template with optional parameters.
Where a and A are the same template with différent output
Where the word "arbre" could be suppressed or placed after the family name
Liné1 6 octobre 2006 à 13:08 (CEST)

Here we go {{Florabase}} and its 3 first usage: Ecdeiocoleaceae, Xyridaceae and Restionaceae

I now understand why there are 3 parameters: the first 039 is the familyId, the lastone is the taxonId. So on the case of a family, the familyId equals the taxonId!

Cheers Liné1 7 octobre 2006 à 07:38 (CEST)

I first implemented proposal B, but it did not fit the family Ecdeiocoleaceae that has no description. So I moved to proposal A.

The other solution (let us call it C) is:

{{florabase |Restionaceae}} returning:

Restionaceae dans Florabase (Australie Ouest) (en)

{{florabase |Restionaceae|039|f|039}} returning:

Restionaceae dans Florabase (Australie Ouest) (en)

        (Voir arbre Restionaceae)

Remark: with 4 parameters, the first link becomes the description

That could be done, with the current template with a small modification

Cheers Liné1 7 octobre 2006 à 12:12 (CEST)

Hi Liné1,

Thank you. I understand your problem, but I am not worried to much about cases where there is no family description. If no description is there, I dont't want to refer to it!

I agree to that point

I still feal sade about not giving access to the tree as from the description, I see no access to the tree. But we don't need to have the tree access on an additional line

{{florabase |039|f|039|Restionaceae}} returning:

Restionaceae et hiérarchie dans Florabase (Australie Ouest) (en)

or

Restionaceae dans Florabase (Australie Ouest) (en) (Voir son arbre)

Liné1 8 octobre 2006 à 10:12 (CEST)

Well as you pointed out, sometimes we have a list (it is not really a tree) and sometimes we have a taxon. A single template would work but it would need two switches, so that we could turn the list off/on and the taxon off/on. I would not know if this could easily be done. To me it looks simplest to make two separate templates. But you are the expert! Brya 8 octobre 2006 à 19:30 (CEST)

Sorry, I don't understand: there is always a list and sometimes a description. So why should there be a switch for the list? I think the list is always interesting as it allows to access the subtaxa and uppertaxa. That is why I think the template is interesting even if there is no description. You also seem to be interested in the subtaxa as you often add references on subtaxa in the article (which is not a standard behavior: in Ecdeiocoleaceae there is no need for the link to the species as the list is accessible). When the description is provided we also must provide the list as there is no way to navigate from the description to the list, sub-taxa, uppertaxa.

Liné1 9 octobre 2006 à 19:08 (CEST)

[modifier] {{Mobot}}

As it is described in {{mobot}}, {{mobot}} is intended to manage cases that {{mobot famille}} and {{mobot ordre}} cannot manage.
So I think the samples given in {{mobot}} should describe the exceptions, not the family and order standard case. I will change that tomorrow.
There are also some use of {{mobot}} to reference genus: It does not work as the site does not provide ways to reference genus as we can reference families.
Liné1 9 octobre 2006 à 19:08 (CEST)

I made a small modification. It proves that in {{Mobot famille |Dipsacales|Dipsacaceae }} it is obligatory for the second name to be capitalized (Dipsacaceae not dipsacaceae) although it works for the first name with or without a "Majuscule".

Good check, It is now much clearer in the template documentation.

Anyway, it looks good now, don't you think? Brya 10 octobre 2006 à 20:33 (CEST)

Very ;-(

Liné1 10 octobre 2006 à 21:44 (CEST)

Thank you! Brya 11 octobre 2006 à 10:28 (CEST)

[modifier] Different things

Hello Brya,

• I really like the modification you made to {{Taxobox végétal}} (Classification Cronquist). So I propagated it to {{taxotest début}}. Sadly we won't be able to do the same with other taxoboxes as for exemple {{taxobox animal}} contains too many different classifications.
• As I saw you add a lot of www.floras.org links, I created {{eFloras}} for you.

Cheers, Liné1 18 octobre 2006 à 11:16 (CEST)

Stop spying me! ;-) lol

Yes I made this change on all the bio reference template. You know, at the beginning I just added some new templates without modifying the old ones. After a while, I did add all those template documentation. But with the time, I fill more confortable even in doing big changes.

I think, it is now time for you to try my software Utilisateur:Liné1/WikipediaBioReference because this software automatically generates all these templates.

For example, if you type Esociformes in my software, you can do this modification whithout a finger movement.

Be aware that I wrote the documentation and the interface in english for you!

Cheers Liné1 18 octobre 2006 à 18:32 (CEST)

Sorry, I translated the documentation, but not the presentation.

To be quick, you type a taxon name in WikipediaBioReference DialogBox and you receive a dialog box containing wikipedia syntax that you can copy/paste in you wikipedia page in the "Liens externes" section. For exemple, this modification took me 3 seconds of work plus 30 seconds of waiting. The data you can paste uses the templates defined in Catégorie:Modèle de biologie créant un lien externe.

Cool, no?

Liné1 19 octobre 2006 à 09:45 (CEST)

Simply modify WikipediaBioReferencesGUI.bat variable JAVA_HOME like this:

set JAVA_HOME=C:\Program Files\Java\jre1.5.0_09\bin

cheers Liné1 19 octobre 2006 à 12:47 (CEST)

Hello Brya

• What do you think of WikipediaBioReferences?
• There is a new version (number 120) that manages wikipedia commons (just download it again and overwrite the WikipediaBioReferences folder in Program Files: you won't loose your adjustments in the .bat file)
• Could you look at Griseliniaceae and Pennantiaceae, I just added their taxobox, but I am not sure if they existed in classification classique.

Cheers Liné1 24 octobre 2006 à 15:58 (CEST)

Hehe, I was kind of waiting for you to ask for eFloras. Of course, I will add it (it was on my todo list), let us say this weekend.

Cheers Liné1 26 octobre 2006 à 13:01 (CEST)

Hello Brya,

From what I saw, you are back in the végétal famille business. ;-)

I have added eFloras & florabase in WikipediaBioReference.

I also added the search for additional Taxobox entries, like {{Taxobox wikispecies}}, {{Taxobox commons}} and {{Taxobox IUCN}}.

All this websites that WikipediaBioReference visits can be deactivated (if you don't {{FishBase espèce}} for example) with the options button.

To update, simply download WikipediaBioReferences.zip and unzip it on your current WikipediaBioReferences folder.

Cheers Liné1 8 novembre 2006 à 10:48 (CET)

[modifier] Hyacinthaceae

Hello Brya,

My restoration is perhaps an error. The problem, it is that you do not justify your cuts in the texts. One thus does not know why you cut. Is it because the text is erroneous ... because you did not understand the sentence well ... Is it involuntary ... etc.

Nevertheless, the page Ornithogalum quotes the Liliaceae. I thus preserved the coherence. (Ask to Jeantosti this source)

This page, maybe erroneous, gives also the Liliaceae. http://erick.dronnet.free.fr/belles_fleurs_de_france/ornithogalum_umbellatum_1.htm

Sorry if I have restored an erroned sentence, but it would be good you justify more your cuts.

See you soon ! ^^ --Zyzomys 8 novembre 2006 à 14:39 (CET)

[modifier] Taxobox

Hello my friend,
we both were fools when we modified the végétal taxobox to reference Cronquist and APG: we forgot that these classifications are for angiospermes ONLY, when {{Taxobox végétal}} is meant for all végétals.
oops, that was a bad change.
Sadly, I had to revert our modifications.
Perhaps, in the future Utilisateur:Hexasoft/test_couleur we will be able to pass an additional parameter to the modèle to specify the classification.
Sniff Liné1 24 novembre 2006 à 19:02 (CET)

Hello my friend, still online?

Could you look at Différentes classifications, I am trying to make a list of classic classifications.

Cheers Liné1 28 novembre 2006 à 17:05 (CET)

Hello my friend,

Yes, I am still online, but I had a lot on my mind, and was only able to do simple things (nothing complex!). I will try and look into these classifications, as soon as possible. It is always something! Brya 30 novembre 2006 à 15:32 (CET)

If you have time, could you lokk at this modification, it seems strange.

Cheers Liné1 1 décembre 2006 à 09:05 (CET)

[modifier] Classification classique

Hello my friend,
I modified a few days ago Classification classique because I had to revert our diff in the taxobox (the link to cronquist and APG II).
My idea is this one:

• the user looks at the taxobox
• clicks on the "classification classique"
• he receives a simple list of classifications saying "This one we use in wikipedia", "this other one too"...
  

All the informations about the classification (except date and author) are in the "Classification de XXX" pages.
That is why I created Classification de Dahlgren and Classification de Thorne even if they are quite empty for now.
Cheers Liné1 5 décembre 2006 à 10:50 (CET)

Yes, I understand. This may not be the most practical solution.

• We could have a list of all (important) classifications: this would run to several dozen even for plants. I put in a few of these classifications already, but it is a lot of work. I very carefully proofread the classification de Wettstein before I put it in, but still it proved to contain a few typos. Also, a problem is that such classifications do not cover the same area: the classification de Engler and the classification de Wettstein cover all plants (including algae and fungi) while the classification Cronquist deals only with angiosperms. The Classification de Dahlgren focuses on monocots. Classifications are not interchangeable.
• We could have a list of the classifications used in wikipedia ("a simple list"), but even so not all users are equally handy in realizing which group they are dealing with, and translating this to a classification. It is a lot easier to have a direct link (maybe yet another parameter in the taxobox?). Also, I am not at all clear which classification wikipedia uses (for conifers?, for ferns?, etc)

So, this is not so easy ;-). Brya 5 décembre 2006 à 11:15 (CET)

Are you sure of that modification? Because it contains gymnospermes. Perhaps I should create a section Plantes à graines (spermaphytes) with those 2 classifications

Cheers Liné1 7 décembre 2006 à 15:14 (CET)

Yes, that ìs better. Thank you. Brya 9 décembre 2006 à 08:52 (CET)

[modifier] Mobot photo famille

Hi Brya,
I created {{Mobot photo famille}} and added it to Utilisateur:Liné1/WikiBioReferences.
Cheers Liné1 10 décembre 2006 à 12:20 (CET)

Would you like a reference for genus and species, like:

Baphia dans MBG images de Madagascar

Baphia capparidifolia dans MBG images de Madagascar ???

because, from those links I cannot get any image

Cheers Liné1 12 décembre 2006 à 14:09 (CET)

[modifier] crossosomatales

Hi. It is not clear, in fench one cannot understand the last sentence :

Cettes quatre familles additionelles (Aphloiacées, Geissolomatacées, Ixerbacées et Strasburgériacées) n'etant pas assigné à un ordre en APG II, mais etant rattaché directement sous Rosidées.

Does it mean :

these 4 families were not in an order in APG, but was directly under Rosidées ? I think so. I've done the modifications, if it is not good tell me, if no it is OK. Bye

[modifier] subsp.

Ah, the infamous Brya. At last we meet.

Thankyou for moving Banksia integrifolia compar to Banksia integrifolia subsp. compar. I came over here from the English Wikipedia to tell them they had it wrong back in March,[1] and received a grossly inadequate response.[2] I am glad that sanity has finally prevailed.

Hesperian 14 novembre 2007 à 06:29 (CET)

I would not know about that. I have found the users on the French wikipedia to be most courteous, quite unlike the openly cutthroat atmosphere at the Plant Project on the English Wikipedia. But then I have never, anywhere else in all Wikimedia, found an atmosphere so violently opposed to fact and good manners as there.

This change looks pretty routine to me. Brya 14 novembre 2007 à 09:07 (CET)

[modifier] Bonne année !

Je te souhaite une bonne année et plein de bonnes contributions. -MugMaster d 1 janvier 2008 à 13:37 CET

[modifier] Classification de Candolle

Hello Brya,
Sorry for my poor english! I have modified the text of Classification de Candolle (structure and phrases) which seems for me too "english". At this step, I want to modify the name of family from upper-case to lower-case (e.g. « classis I. DICOTYLEDONEÆ » to « classis I. Dicotyledoneæ ») but I am not sure it is correct for botanic rules, however it will be better for french wikipedia ones . Please confirm me that I can do it. Thanks a lot. Have a nice day. Friendly. Givet (d) 25 mai 2008 à 08:23 (CEST)